I agree TH, but when looking for reasons why some Canadians may be snubbing US problems at this time it is probably a factor.

Lets add to the mix this via KoS 3 days ago.

On tonight’s news, CTV (Canadian TV) said that support was offered from Canada. Planes are ready to load with food and medical supplies and a system called “DART” which can provide fresh water and medical supplies is standing by. Department of Homeland Security as well as other U.S. agencies were contacted by the Canadian government requesting permission to provide help. Despite this contact, Canada has not been allowed to fly supplies and personnel to the areas hit by Katrina. So, everything here is grounded. Prime Minister Paul Martin is reportedly trying to speak to President Bush tonight or tomorrow to ask him why the U.S. federal government will not allow aid from Canada into Louisiana and Mississippi. That said, the Canadian Red Cross is reportedly allowed into the area.

SL:

Thanks for hammering one more nail into the coffin of the ” Canadians are self-effacing, modest, ahhwww shucks, no, you’re embarrassing me with your praise and thanks,” myth. (Actually, what I want to know is how you found any space for one more nail).

What’s it going to take for you to stop using Katrina as a vehicle for your anti-Americanism? (I’m not going to waste my time asking you to feel some sympathy for these people. I’d settle for an end to the unseemly sniping).

How about public service announcements on all the major American TV networks, every hour on the hour:

” We interrupt our regularly scheduled programming to ….. THANK CANADA!!!”

Come on Stageleft, you’re better than this.

That accusation of “anti-Americanism” has run its course. I’ve been hearing that all my life, and one of the reasons it’s used over and over again as a rebuttal to any criticism of the United States (and its usually a criticism of its governmental policies, especially those that affect us and the wider world negatively) is that Canadians (being who we are) fall over ourselves all the time to make sure we explain that we’re not being reflexively anti-American.

Who cares? Call me anti-American, it really doesn’t matter anymore. It’s meaningless and is just to used deflect criticism and to obscure any real debate.

Stageleft:

I see Ti-Guy has posted something about the question of anti-Americanism, so I’ll respond to your claim that you’re not anti-American when I respond to him.

On the issue of who is to blame for the response to the hurricane, there’s plenty of blame to go around, and the Bush administration deserves its share. Yet it seems that you and many others are going to do their level best to see that it all lands on Bush’s doorstep. State and local officials take the lead in pre-disaster preparations, and it’s apparent that they dropped the ball big time.

>>”Personally I have a great deal of sympathy for what those people are enduring, devastating is to light a word to use and in all honesty I can’t even imagine what it would be like to lose everything except the cloths on your back.”

Your original post isn’t just devoid of any expression of sympathy, you actually attempt to provide a justification for your lack of sympathy. Can you explain the contradiction between what you posted originally, and your statement that I quote above?

>>”Quite frankly your “please recognize Canada, please tell the world what we’ve done” comment is another face of the strawman I mentioned a few hundred words back - it does not become you and I’m pretty sure that you knew the point I was getting at… like it or not it is one of the reasons why there are those north of the border with GAF factors only slightly above a yawn.”

I think you need to re-read what you posted. You stated that you’re having difficulty feeling sympathy for the United States (I assume that includes its people), and that the reason you’re having difficulty mustering any sympathy is a lack of expressions of gratitude from the U.S. There’s no strawman there SL, other than the one you’re now attempting to construct from your own original post.

If you aren’t pissed at the fact that the Americans haven’t been singing our praises, then you shouldn’t have used it as a rationale for justifying a lack of sympathy for their plight. But you are pissed, and that’s why you said what you said.

>>”Although there are many on the right who do like to setup the little ‘any criticism of Bush is anti-American’ strawman my sympathy for the people of the gulf coast and my criticism of the Bush administration and their bumbling and fumbling are two different things.”

As I mentioned earlier, your newly arrived at expressions of sympathy for the people of the gulf coast are disingenuous attempts at ass-covering. Your indignation over my pointing this out rings rather hollow.

Mike, don’t address all of that to me. Ask Stageleft.

I stand by what I said. Anti-Americanism is a meaningless accusation to shut down legitimate debate and criticism about negative affects of American government policies.

Mike: Stageleft would never say the things he did in his original post here, about the Sri Lankan, Indonesian, and Thai victims of the tsunami.

What did I say about the victims Mike? I have been highly critical of Bush and the US government but do not recall saying anything nasty about the victims. With regard to the other countries you mention do read my comments on not all countries being held to the same standards - trust me, if the Canadian government screwed the pooch as royally as Bush has I’d be on Martins’ ass like like ugly on a monkey in a heart beat… would that make me anti-Canadian?

Mike: Stageleft claims he isn’t anti-American, he’s anti-Bush. It’s a standard defense, one routinely offered up by bloggers who devote most of their energies to criticism of the U.S.

…. and the strawman makes his entry from stage right with the, anti-Bush = anti-American = bad stageleft argument. Sorry dude, that dog don’t hunt ’round here any better than its’ twin brother ‘against the Iraqi war = support for terrorists’. It’s an old and worn out line that I’m getting tired of seeing, let me make it real clear, George Bush is not America, he’s the president of America, as long as George Bush is not America I can detest the dirty little man without detesting America - when George Bush becomes America then I guess I will be anti-American until such time as he is no longer America.

Mike: Furthermore, how can you separate a dislike of Bush, from the millions of Americans who wholeheartedly support him and his policies?

…. and another strawman makes his entry (also from stage right). Frankly Mike I think that is a whole lot of smoke with a couple of broken mirrors tossed in in the hope that someone will buy it. I happen to be of the opinion that a whole lot of Americans have been hood-winked, duped, lied to, sold snake oil, they have had deep personal fears created and then played upon - I know Americans who supported Bush in the last election and chat with them regularly, sometimes about politics, sometimes about the weather, sometimes about our kids and what they’ve done, and sometimes about the horrors of CSS and Internet Explorer. I know Americans that support him now and chat with them regularly, sometimes about politics, sometimes about the weather, sometimes about our kids and what they’ve done, and sometimes about the horrors of CSS and Internet Explorer. I am not anti-those-people at all Mike, I know it, and those people know it.

Mike: These bloggers play the “ anti-Bush, not anti-American “ card, yet when it suits a particular diatribe, they’ll recite 100 years of American wrongdoing, both at home and abroad…….

I think that if you cull the archives you will find that I have commented on what I see as the good and the bad of:

* previous US government decisions
* previous Canadian government decisions
* the Vatican
* mainstream christianity
* Iraqi atrocities
* the Iranian mullahs, and, among a great many other things
* Lowell Green once running for political office under the Liberal banner

- so what? This blog does have a strong ‘the little war president is a danger to America and the rest of the world and this is why I believe that to be true’ flavour - that is because that is the way I think and this is what I have chosen to do about it. Other bloggers on both sides of the Canadian/US border think differently - I don’t believe that that makes them anti-everyone-else-in-the-world-who-doesn’t-agree-with-them (well, except maybe for Michael Savage and the rabid idiots over at Little Green Footballs who just may be).

Mike: There are legitimate criticisms to be made, it’s the unjustified criticisms that expose anti-Americanism…..

Which criticisms are unjustified Mike? And in whose opinion are they unjustified? That sounds an awful lot to me like the Sean Hannity ‘no one should be complaining about Bush because it destroys troop moral and emboldens the enemy’ crap.

Mike: Vinny:

Are you defending SL’s original post? Why don’t you read it again, as well as SL’s tacit approval and defense of Canadian Cynic’s loathsome comments a couple days ago.

Vinny is a very articulate fella and more than able to speak for himself Mike but I really think you should go back and read both my post and the Canadian Cynic’s post again. The Cynic draws a lot of comparison’s between New Orleans and Baghdad - there’s a whole theme about what Americans on the gulf coast may/will suffer compared to what has been happening (and continues to happen on a daily basis) in Iraq that no a lot of Western society seems all that concerned about….. the Cynic is pissed about that and he let go a rant of biblical proportions about it.

My comments were “…I’m not going to say that I agree with absolutely everything in the post… but as blunt as it is, if ya take a solid look at the points he brings up, it’s hard not, well… agree (at least somewhat) with the ideas put forward.”

My suggestion to you is to quite buying into the ‘every criticism of George Bush and the American government is proof positive of rampant anti-Americanism’ argument Mike - it’s nothing more than a tactic to to silence debate. I can take potshots at Bush’s complete and utter incompetence as far as hurricane Katrina goes without being anti-American and unsympathetic to the plight of people in New Orleans, I can criticize Martin without being anti-Canadian, I can take swipes at Blair without being anti-Brit, and I can say the war in Iraq was a huge friggen mistake without being Saddam Husseins best friend and a supporter of terrorism.

Stageleft:

>>”What did I say about the victims Mike? I have been highly critical of Bush and the US government but do not recall saying anything nasty about the victims. With regard to the other countries you mention do read my comments on not all countries being held to the same standards - trust me, if the Canadian government screwed the pooch as royally as Bush has I’d be on Martins’ ass like like ugly on a monkey in a heart beat… would that make me anti-Canadian?”

Your initial post here was one in which you claimed to be feeling similar sentiments to those Canadians who “….don’t seem to have a lot of sympathy just now for the United States and the environmental disaster come Mad Max anarchy and chaos in New Orleans this week,…..”

What did you say about the victims, SL? You said you’re having difficulty mustering sympathy for the U.S. That has to mean its people. How can it mean anything else? Sorry, you can’t spin this into “ no, I meant I don’t feel sorry for Bush or his administration.” That’s crap. Bush and his cabinet don’t live in New Orleans.

Once and for all, SL, without any more bobbing and weaving, please give me a straightforward, no-bullshit answer to my contention that your initial post was an expression of a lack of sympathy for the victims of Katrina, and that you justified this by citing apparent American ingratitude to Canadian aid. I have no idea how you see your “ not all countries being held to the same standards….” comment, as providing you with any vindication. There’s simply no way you would have made a comment like the one you did, in relation to the tsunami victims. I realize you have no intention now of admitting that, but we both know the difference rests solely with the nationality of the victims, and that is anti-Americanism. It may be out of character for you, it may not be. Only you know how you truly feel about the U.S. That doesn’t change the fact that this was an anti-American statement.

>>”…. and the strawman makes his entry from stage right with the, anti-Bush = anti-American = bad stageleft argument. Sorry dude, that dog don’t hunt ’round here any better than its’ twin brother ‘against the Iraqi war = support for terrorists’. It’s an old and worn out line that I’m getting tired of seeing, let me make it real clear, George Bush is not America, he’s the president of America, as long as George Bush is not America I can detest the dirty little man without detesting America - when George Bush becomes America then I guess I will be anti-American until such time as he is no longer America.”

No, you’re the one tossing in the strawman. Here’s what I said:

“Without culling the Stageleft archives, I can’t say for certain that he’s engaged in this type of wholesale anti-Americanism. I have seen instances of it here.”

You do make anti-American comments, SL. Your original post here is an indisputable example. As I mentioned earlier, any blogger who devotes so much of his production to criticism of a particular country (sorry, I’m not gonna let you get away with your Bush-in-a-bubble separation. There are millions upon millions of Americans who support Bush unequivocally) is displaying inclination toward anti-Americanism. But in spite of both of these points, I gave you the benefit of doubt on the question of whether you’re vociferously anti-American, as my remark above shows.

My comments to Ti-Guy were intended to establish that anti-Americanism is real, and it isn’t a deflection tactic designed to counter justifiable criticism. That’s an entirely separate question from whether you’re a member of the America-hating fraternity. Which leads me to your agreement with Ti-Guy that anti-Americanism is a bogus charge, period:

>>”…. and another strawman makes his entry (also from stage right). Frankly Mike I think that is a whole lot of smoke with a couple of broken mirrors tossed in in the hope that someone will buy it. I happen to be of the opinion that a whole lot of Americans have been hood-winked, duped, lied to, sold snake oil, they have had deep personal fears created and then played upon -……”

You can’t have it both ways, SL, and claim that Bush has played the Svengali-thing with the American people, and “ duped “ them, then bash and mock the huge Christian right faction on other occasions. The Christian right and neoconservatism was around long before Bush took office. They weren’t “ duped,” or “ sold snake oil.” They believe what they believe. It is a fraud to attempt to separate and isolate Bush and his administration from the huge American constituency who share his values and beliefs.

>>”I think that if you cull the archives you will find that I have commented on what I see as the good and the bad of: ……”

Well, I do confess to having a peak at the archives last night, but I can’t access much more than half of them. Seems the first half of each month is inaccessible (what happened?). But I’m digressing. As I mentioned earlier, I’m willing to give you the benefit of the doubt that you’re not in the “ My Blahg “ league of anti-Americanism.

>>”Which criticisms are unjustified Mike? And in whose opinion are they unjustified? That sounds an awful lot to me like the Sean Hannity ‘no one should be complaining about Bush because it destroys troop moral and emboldens the enemy’ crap.”

Which criticisms are unjustified isn’t a tangent I want to diverge on in this thread. My point was that people can’t use the sham defense that they’re only anti-Bush, not anti-American, then proceed to bash 100 years of American foreign and domestic history. You’ve made no attempt to address that argument, because you know it does establish the existence of anti-Americanism as a real and widely prevalent phenomenon.

If someone were to tell me they weren’t anti-Chinese, only opposed to the non-democratic Chinese leadership, I’d have little reason to dispute their claim. Similarly, if one were to state they weren’t anti-Iranian, only opposed to Iran’s theocrat leadership, or weren’t anti-North Korean, only anti-Kim, these are stances that are entirely believable. But when someone claims they aren’t anti-American, but consistently criticizes the culture, social and political fabric of the country, as well as its foreign policy, long before Bush became president, well that is indisputably and substantially different than the other examples I give above.

At some point, the claim that one is not anti-American has to fall apart when one takes stock of just how much they don’t like about the U.S., its citizens, and their values. Trying to foist all of this on Bush is as dishonest as it gets. As an aside, how can you claim that anti-Americanism does not exist on the left, yet the Canadian left routinely accuses Canadian conservatives of “ hating Canada,” and this “ hate Canada “ accusation is often accompanied by secondary accusations that conservative hatred for Canada is tied to their “ pro-American “ views? That’s an interesting double standard.

Instead of attempting to dismiss the existence of anti-Americanism, as you and Ti-Guy are attempting to do, maybe it’s time for the practitioners of anti-Americanism to dispense with their reflexive but dishonest denials and come correct.

Something along the lines of “ yes, I don’t like the United States, and I’m willing to defend and justify why I think that way. I dislike the views and values of many Americans. I have contempt for their belief in American moral primacy, and their belief that they should also retain military primacy in the world. I detest and fear the Christian right. I hate the fact that America allows capitol punishment, and loves its right to bear arms…….” I could go on and on with things that people who are anti-American hate about the country, but I’m sure you understand where I’m coming from. Following such admissions, anti-Americans can then defend why they dislike the U.S. Who knows, maybe at the end of the day, they can make a case that “ we’re anti-American, and on balance, we’re justified in being anti-American.”

>>”My comments were “…I’m not going to say that I agree with absolutely everything in the post… but as blunt as it is, if ya take a solid look at the points he brings up, it’s hard not, well… agree (at least somewhat) with the ideas put forward.”

You placed emphasis on the word “ everything,” which was clearly intended to portray that there wasn’t much you disagreed with. That was evident in the rest of your post, and your subsequent comments to me. You defended (and continue to defend) Cynic’s use of Katrina as an excuse for Bush bashing, and his disgusting logic that hating Bush justified not feeling sympathy for those in Katrina’s wake. That was absolute bullshit. None of you on the left have needed any particular excuse or occasion to launch into such a tirade. Cynic simply didn’t have the decency to lay off using something like Katrina as a platform for yet another fill-in-the-blanks screed. I avoided criticizing you in that particular thread, but now wish I hadn’t, given your obvious wilful blindness to the maliciousness of Cynic’s post.

>>”My suggestion to you is to quite buying into the ‘every criticism of George Bush and the American government is proof positive of rampant anti-Americanism’ argument Mike - it’s nothing more than a tactic to to silence debate. I can take potshots at Bush’s complete and utter incompetence as far as hurricane Katrina goes without being anti-American and unsympathetic to the plight of people in New Orleans, …….”

My suggestion to you is to quit trying to pin the entire disaster on Bush, which is what you and many others are predictably trying to do. Trust me, when this is all sorted out, we’re going to see it was the state and local officials who bear a large portion of the blame for this catastrophe. I don’t expect that’s going to register with you.

Man, that was the longest comment I’ve ever seen in my life.